Is perceived racism / bigotry actual racism / bigotry?

B_Hickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
10,059
Media
0
Likes
60
Points
183
Location
That twinge in your intestines
OK - but it wasn't made as a joke - it was more - she's (i.e. me) a bit thick, she's Irish.

Not really a joke - not an Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman joke for example.

Yes - jokes can be funny - especially clever ones that play on and reverse the steriotype. But what about jokes that play on the steriotypes only. Jokes about black people being inferior - are those ever funny? What about jokes about gay people being child molestors - are they funny?

I don't think so.

Certainly there is room for non-PC humour. I'm all for that. That's not really what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is someone making a passing comment, like 'she's a bit thick, she's Irish' and not thinking they are being (or even meaning to be) bigoted. Am I wrong to perceive that as bigotry?


You are thick, honey. In all the right places. May I chew on that for a while? Yeahhhh,,,... Oh, what? Sorry. :hijacked:

Back to our regularly scheduled programmmmmmmm.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
It is part of why we have to be careful. My friends at work joke with me all the time. We respect each other. It's done in good nature. We do have some uptight people who take offence at anything. Unfortunately, the biggest jerk of all is a supervisor. He is a racist pig but super sensitive about his own race.
It depends on what is said, who said it, and who is hearing it.
I hear older people calling their own race by the term used during their time. I hear really old black people saying colored. I hear old black people saying negro. I hear young black people saying the N word. I hate that word. sheesh You might as well call somebody nonhuman.
 

B_Hickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
10,059
Media
0
Likes
60
Points
183
Location
That twinge in your intestines
75%? Why 75%? - I mean I understand your point and all, but it doesn't leave much room for grey-scale.

What if it's 66.6.% on each side - then is it still a problem?

Spoken like one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing... :wink:

IOW, you could be a white person from the USA.

OMG Does this mean we're all human beings? :eek:
 

ledroit

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Posts
809
Media
1
Likes
54
Points
248
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Great topic.

There are several reasons the issue is difficult. The first has to do with the difference between feeling, thinking, and action. The second has to do with actually causing someone else harm. Clearly, if I act deliberately in order to hurt someone else, or a group of people, and succeed, that causes the most damage. So the reality test for racism should involve action that truly hurts and damages other people.

But with something as serious as racism, the hurt and damage should be something more than a perceived slight or misunderstanding. If I simply misinterpret what someone says, and assume it is the result of racist thoughts or feelings, I run the risk of belittling both the reality of what racism is, as well as the reality of the other person. I am just playing a power game if that is what I am interested in. I can attack someone else as racist on the flimsiest of grounds, and for the slightest reasons. This turns "racism" into little more than an opportunity for me to score a point.

When people post a few sentences on a board like this about any topic at all, someone looking for a fight can easily seize upon a remark or phrase some stranger makes and turn it into something big. It's really like having a conversation in a bar, when a random stranger makes a remark that you can take 3 or 4 different ways. In a bar, however, you can see the person's face, style, mood, etc, and you can also see the mood and tone of the place itself--what kind of other people are there, what kind of joint it is. So you can more easily use that setting and the rich information you are getting from a face to face encounter to know whether the guy is making a joke, revealing a secret, attacking you, or trying to engage in collusion, or just being immature and thoughtless.

On a site like this, unless members get to know people over time, it is more difficult to figure out the context, as naughty & alex have said.

If someone doesn't want to do that, or can't, flaming occurs easily.

Attacking others is a cheap way to get a thrill. A site like this is also going to appeal to some people at least who are into power trips. People who like to pose as "alphas" and dominate because they think they can get away with it here. Power trips can include women who like enjoy being provocative in a way that gets men to fighting each other in order to impress "the ladies."

That is the context I use when periodically somebody decides to use some word or event in order to pick a fight, or cause one.

I live in a liberal, well integrated city (Washington DC), where day to day conversations with real people in shops, restaurants, bars, clubs, churches, social groups, parks, gyms, sporting events do not tolerate racist behavior. Does this mean there are no idiots who are not tempted to blame someone's appearance if they get bad service at a drug store? Of course not.

But unless I am an isolated misfit with psychological problems and thug politics, chances are that I interact with all kinds of people successfully, people of widely different backgrounds, circumstances, skills, & interests. In my opinion, that is what keeps me balanced and healthy as a person, and whole. Maybe this comes across when I post, and maybe not. But that remains the true test for me if I want to ask myself whether I am racist.

Do I turn my eyes away if I am walking down the street and avoid a nod or saying hello based on appearance? If I do, that's an action, and it could have consequences for the other person. So I make it a point to be color blind when I walk down the street, and I assume other people are just like me, regardless of appearance.

I love science and the intellectual life, and I love living in reality, not fantasy. Because of this, I like connecting with people, and I do not like people who make connecting with others difficult.

On this site, those are the people I spot most easily, and I avoid them. I think they are the ones who cause the most trouble, and enjoy creating and causing fights. It doesn't matter to me much what reasons they use for attacking others. What matters to me is that when they do so, it makes it difficult for other people to connect. They get people distracted, confused, angry, inflamed. The choice is then to leave the board or withdraw, or just focus on sex or cocks or something less complex.

The site works best when moderators also want to encourage and sustain this kind of environment on the board. But when you get a few who really seem to enjoy power plays and provocation, it sends a signal to the members that attacks are fun. Let the strongest win. In that kind of environment, fights and attacks that claim to be responses to racism are going to increase, at the expense of an environment in which people will enjoy connecting with others of different backgrounds and interest.

For bullies to attack or abuse others and then claim it as the right of "free speech" is a deliberate attempt to undermine what any relationship requires: sustained and genuine interaction, including good communication. So the bullies here are actually attacking the site itself, not simply another member, when they engage in abusive behavior.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Spoken like one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing... :wink:

IOW, you could be a white person from the USA.

OMG Does this mean we're all human beings? :eek:

Either your missing my point or being intentionally obtuse. The point is that the line of when some is or isn't offensive is entirely personal.

Putting such a concrete figure on it leaves no room for personal experience. Just because you and 3 other people are not offended by something and I am does not mean it isn't offensive. (assuming we're in a 'group' - and while you're at it, define 'group' for me, would ya?)

And of course we're all human beings - if only we could leave it at that...
 

wldhoney

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Posts
1,154
Media
3
Likes
29
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
I have experienced racism in several different ways.

One, as someone who is 1/4 American Indian, 1/4 Irish, and 1/4 Swedish, depending on any tan I am carrying, I can look more one way than the other.

I have had people make very racist statements to me regarding Indians without realizing I am registered as one. On going to the reservation where my dad grew up and my relatives live, I have had Indians verbally attack me and even physically attack me as a child because to them I look white.

While working for the airlines, an African American lady whose flight was delayed approached me and began yelling at me, calling me a "fucking cracker bitch". It was kind of surreal in that she was dressed beautifully in a gorgeous caftan and hair turban and looked so classy, but she was yelling "cracker" and I had no idea at the time what it meant. The funny thing was that one of my co-workers, who was also black, attended the same church as this lady, and my friend was more insulted on my behalf than I was.

So, when it comes to racism, I don't empower it by allowing it to bother me. One, it will never be an equal battle. You can call someone a "cracker" with no response, but use the "N" word and people come unglued. It's the same in other races. In our area, gringo is not a compliment, just is spik isn't. We can say white, but it's not politically correct to say Mexican instead of Hispanic.

Two, I take comments like that with a grain of salt. We never know what someone's trigger is, but I figure if I can dish it out, I better be able to take it when someone steps into my sensitive area.

No, you are not wrong to feel offended, but try not to take it personally.

When friends found out someone called me a cracker, one of them turned to me and said "So, did you tell her you're a wheat cracker?". I've always been able to laugh about because of that.
 

Draconis71

Loved Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Posts
1,556
Media
12
Likes
551
Points
333
Location
Ottawa (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Oh, yes... What a prickly subject...
I admit, over the last few years, I have become prejudiced... (I wouldn't call it racist... yet)... over a few incidents. There was the one incident where a youth gang composed of a specific ethnnicity who were boarding the city bus. Many were tossing out the transfers (proof of payment) to allow their friends on free. The driver saw this, and went and started verifying PoP.
IN the mean time, a kid grabbed the whole sheath of them, started passing them out. Another kid, had then accused the driver of being racist (reason why he was checking to see who paied/had proof). The driver had asked me, and 2 of my co-workers, and a 4th person as well who were on the bus since the beginning of the route. The kid who'd accused the driver of being rasist attacked the driver.

Incident 2. I was at a bank machine, attempting to transfer funds to a different account, and pay my bills. A kid, who had those ANNOYING roller-shoes slams into me (this was in a mall). The parent starts shouting at ME, telling me I should be watching where I'm going. She, and her husband were then accusing me of being racist/acting as if I owned the place b/c of me being caucasian, and that they to, were citizens. (So damned what, lady... manage yer children...)... And, Oh... I got spoken to, that I should NOT address the guys wife without his permission...

incident 3). Grocery store. Express lineup, 8 or less items. Guy a) butts in, b) has 17 items. I ask if he minded. His response was to the likes that it's his right as a citizen, etc... Another case of pulling the race card.

Incident 4) In a couple neighbourhoods, there's a higher concentration of a specific ethnic group. I have noticed women from this group (30's, 40's +) marking their territory in elevators as a cat would. Hike up the dress, and just piddle, that, or do it where they are, right on the street.

incident 5). Let's just call it dumbass GangaBanga causing shit. Calls the cop racist for stopping him with open beer in public, and underaged drinking. Nuff said, both illlegal... and cop just finished arresting another kid. Race wasn't even an issue.

Anyays...Point is, some groups (gangs), and a few individuals tend to reinforce the stereotypical bad behaviours, which "justifies" some of the prejudices. Admittedly, I am prejudiced, but I make an effort to have it NOT influence my actions. (Hell, I PREFER to be proven wrong in my prejudices by individuals I meet)
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Oh, yes... What a prickly subject...
I admit, over the last few years, I have become prejudiced... (I wouldn't call it racist... yet)... over a few incidents. There was the one incident where a youth gang composed of a specific ethnnicity who were boarding the city bus. Many were tossing out the transfers (proof of payment) to allow their friends on free. The driver saw this, and went and started verifying PoP.
IN the mean time, a kid grabbed the whole sheath of them, started passing them out. Another kid, had then accused the driver of being racist (reason why he was checking to see who paied/had proof). The driver had asked me, and 2 of my co-workers, and a 4th person as well who were on the bus since the beginning of the route. The kid who'd accused the driver of being rasist attacked the driver.

Incident 2. I was at a bank machine, attempting to transfer funds to a different account, and pay my bills. A kid, who had those ANNOYING roller-shoes slams into me (this was in a mall). The parent starts shouting at ME, telling me I should be watching where I'm going. She, and her husband were then accusing me of being racist/acting as if I owned the place b/c of me being caucasian, and that they to, were citizens. (So damned what, lady... manage yer children...)... And, Oh... I got spoken to, that I should NOT address the guys wife without his permission...

incident 3). Grocery store. Express lineup, 8 or less items. Guy a) butts in, b) has 17 items. I ask if he minded. His response was to the likes that it's his right as a citizen, etc... Another case of pulling the race card.

Incident 4) In a couple neighbourhoods, there's a higher concentration of a specific ethnic group. I have noticed women from this group (30's, 40's +) marking their territory in elevators as a cat would. Hike up the dress, and just piddle, that, or do it where they are, right on the street.

incident 5). Let's just call it dumbass GangaBanga causing shit. Calls the cop racist for stopping him with open beer in public, and underaged drinking. Nuff said, both illlegal... and cop just finished arresting another kid. Race wasn't even an issue.

Anyays...Point is, some groups (gangs), and a few individuals tend to reinforce the stereotypical bad behaviours, which "justifies" some of the prejudices. Admittedly, I am prejudiced, but I make an effort to have it NOT influence my actions. (Hell, I PREFER to be proven wrong in my prejudices by individuals I meet)
If that was all it took for you to judge millions of people you haven't ever met in a negative light, then perhaps you weren't as far from a racist as you thought you were.

Take me, for example. I've had "nigger" scrawled on my backpack when I was a youth. But I've learned to forgive and forget and fuck the quivering shit out of their daughters and film the proceedings on pristine Super VHS video for personal and commercial use.
 

datdude

Experimental Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Posts
302
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
To the origianl qusetion:

I think a lot of people are just ignorant about what is bigotry. Peopl know not to say something about blacks, since TV has told them, time and time agian. Other races though are up fpr grabs.

I grew up in a mixed are of blacks and whites. Black guys always would stero-type whites and thought there was nothing wrong with it. Call whites crackers, like it was nothing. THen be confused when someone would take offense.

Been asked if I was Jewish, because I didnt want to spend extra money on some food. I was shocked because I could be Jewish, its not so easy to tell. The guy just threw it out there like it was noting.


Im half-Dark Irish. I have heard the word Mick before. Also I could fight very well, when i was in High School that gave me a lot of respect. People said thats because I was Irish also. WTF????
 

Boobalaa

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
5,535
Media
0
Likes
1,185
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The ol rhyme.."sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is bullshit! Words do hurt and emotions are real. Just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so goes everything else..
You better check yourself before you wreck yourself
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't let things like this bother me. These racist people are just a bad reflection on themselves. A few weeks ago I was talking to someone who hates everyone. (this was a customer at work) He even mentioned my nationality and I did not call him out on it. We were talking about how I wanted to move to Florida. He said that he hates blacks, and Hipanics and then he mentioned San Francisco. This guy is a fem gay. So I asked him what he hated about San Francisco and he said "the Chinese".
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The ol rhyme.."sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is bullshit! Words do hurt and emotions are real. Just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so goes everything else..
You better check yourself before you wreck yourself

Stick and stones hurt, Words are just words. they only hurt if you care about the person who says them.
 

asianbulgelover

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Posts
18
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
148
Location
Toronto
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Here is an analogy that will help you to answer your question: if the 'offending' party doesn't think they've been racist / bigoted is the target of the comment wrong to take the comment in that way?

Suppose Bert hates his wife Alice so much that he wants to kill her. He decides that he's going to poison her with some "poisonous" tablets that he'll mix in with her daily coffee. Now, suppose also that Alice has a life-threatening disease and suppose also that the "poisonous" tablets that Bert is going to mix in with her daily coffee just happens to be a cure for Alice's life-threatening disease. But this fact is unknown to Bert! He goes ahead and mixes the "poisonous" tablets to Alice's daily coffee.

Here's the question: Was it morally wrong of Bert to add the "poisonous" tablets to Alice's daily coffee?

Answer (or so I think): No! Given that the act of adding the tablets will cure Alice of her life-thrreatening disease (rather than killing her, as Bert thought), it was morally permissible for Bert to do what he did do! The fact that Bert INTENDED to kill Alice by mixing the tablets with her daily coffee only provides us with reason to think that Bert is of a bad character. The fact does not provide us with reason to think that Bert's ACT of mixing the tablets with her daily coffee is morally impermissible. In fact, it isn't!

The moral of the analogy is this: the INTENTION of the person only provides a reason to assess the CHARACTER of the person and not a reason to assess the morality of the ACT of the person!

So, getting back to your question. Since the 'offending' party doesn't think their comment is racist/bigoted, we have reason to think that they don't INTEND to cause offense. Nevertheless, their ACT of making such a comment did offend the "target". Hence, their ACT of making such a comment was perceived to be racist/bigoted and thus their ACT was morally impermissible (ie. it ought not to have been done!).

If you believe that the INTENTION of a person gives a reason for assessing the morality of that person's ACT, then you might think that the morality of the person's ACT gives us a reason for assessing the morality of that person's INTENTIONS. Hence the conundrum you're in:

(i) you perceive the ACT of the 'offending' party to be racist/bigoted (and hence is morally impermissible) and yet the INTENTIONS of the 'offending' party appear to be non-racist/non-bigoted (nothing morally wrong there!)

(ii) you believe that the morality of the person's ACT gives us a reason for assessing the morality of that person's INTENTIONS

(iii) both (i) and (ii) seem to be in tension with each other. If (ii) is true, then how can (i) be coherent? In other words, if (ii) is true, how can an ACT be morally bad and yet the INTENTION of the person who performed the act be morally neutral? If (ii) is true, we might want to say that if the ACT was morally bad, then we have reason to think that the INTENTION of the person who performed the act is also morally bad rather than morally neutral.

However, if you are persuaded by the above analogy, you will no longer believe that the INTENTION of a person gives a reason for assessing the morality of that person's ACT and therefore, you will not think that the morality of a person's ACT gives us a reason for assessing the morality of that person's INTENTIONS. If this is so, then you will no longer believe that (ii) above is true (ie. the morality of a person's ACT is not logically relevant to the morality of that person's INTENTION in performing that act) and so you would be consistent in believing that an ACT be morally bad and that the INTENTIONS of the person who performed that act be morally neutral. It would now seem that you no longer have a conundrum!

The take home message is this: You are NOT wrong to take the comment of the 'offending' party as a racist/bigoted one. The comment was a racist/bigoted one! However, you would be wrong in blaming the 'offending' party for making such a comment given that they do not believe that the comment is racist/bigoted. Remember, as argued above, the INTENTIONS of a person are not logically relevant to the ACTS of a person. INTENTIONS are only relevant to assessing the character of the person with such INTENTIONS. If the 'offending' party thinks that their comments are not bigoted/racist, then they don't INTEND to offend you and hence you have no reason to think they're bad (ie. racist/bigoted) people. The proper response would be to educate them about their offensive comments!!!!

Hopefully I've answered your question!
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
White people have constructed society and culture in such a way that we get to wear an empowering cloak of 'invisibility'... we're the 'absent, unspoken centre' of things, the socially constructed norm that almost without exception goes 'unmarked'. Because that's how our white progenitors constructed the world... to make themselves appear 'simply normal', with no finger being pointed at them to highlight them as outsiders, as anything other than 'the way people should be' (with 'white people' thereby defining themselves as 'all people').

I suppose it depends on which society one's talking about. I think you're smart enough to not fall into that pre-conception; of speaking from the perspective of a European nation where it may be valid. A legacy of western, white imperialism has been to stamp a decidedly caucasian (in nature even if not always in 'colour') hierarchy in many parts of the the world though this isn't the case everywhere. The backlash when it happened, has on occasion, been ugly.

When people start waving around epithets that make people stand out, they need to be very sure of their audience. It's one thing for two friends who might know each other well to bandy about a phrase like 'shameless negro', but on the internet.. and at a time when everyone's feelings are heated.. it's really not going to be taken lightly.

I agree. I think that particular comment was made with the express intention provoking the response it did, in that sense it achieved its end. The fact that is was made in a time of 'stress' doesn't per se make it more, or less offensive, merely well timed. Given the apparent hostility between Arliss and Lex, I have no doubt that was factored into the equation, on both sides.

And if ever you feel the finger of exclusion pointing at you, you're hurt in a way that runs deep, because it's hurt on a level that's been drummed into us both consciously and subconsciously by our culture since birth.

Well that rather depends on the culture one has been brought up in. We all have our predjudices, to deny that is to deny Human nature. It's in the nature of even small children to run with a pack, to ostracise, even bully those that are perceived as 'different'. How much of that is instinctive, how much is learned. More relevant here, as adults, how much can we 'unlearn'?

Mostly, it's far more subtle than a phrase like 'shameless Negro', though. Like the recent thread about (and I quote) "a black woman" who let her babies die while she went for a snack. Would anyone have written that it was "a white woman" who did this? No, they'd have simply said it was "a woman". Because white people have that option, of going unmarked, unlabelled.

I recall that thread, and it caught my attention too. I thought about asking why the woman's skin colour was considered relevant but with the bloodletting going on elsewhere I decided to let it alone.

It's not about being PC, it's about looking at the deeper socio-cultural and semantic structures which enable bigotry and exclusion of all kinds. And it's about realising that most labels are defined through opposition.. by being applied when people 'fail' to fit the (unspoken, unwritten, majority-defined) 'norm'. Thus, they all carry the potential to come across as finger-pointing unless used with due caution, care, and consideration --- because they 'mark' people.. both symbolically, and literally.

PC is all too often a convenient placeholder for people unwilling to address fundamental tenets and realities and hide their insecurities and bias behind a cosy fuzziness. In that sense it's self defeating, in others because it merely draws attention to its own incongruity.

Disclaimer; the following comments relate to my experience is not meant to represnent the 'norms' of any one society in any way other than I have interacted with them.

The hoops people jump through to avoid causing offense, where none would be caused from merely being honest. The very act of denying the reality of the person in front of them by seeking a friendly pidgenhole in which to place them is surely a far bigger insult than accepting them as they are. At least that's so if what many people tell me is anything to go by.

I spend much of my life in a culture (not in the UK) that is almost exclusively black. In conversation, if I referred to other people I've interacted with as 'people of colour' I'd be met with puzzlement, or worse as a rascist merely for having done so. The PC concept is for the most part, simply lost on many. I can't confirm that response from personal experience, only vicariously because it's simply never entered my head to describe someone with that epithet. I'd feel stupid. In other situations, in other cultures that may not be the case. I'd still feel stupid, but that's a secondary concern to causing inadvertant offence.

But, what's even more stupid is that (here at LPSG) just by relating the above I open myself up to a broad range of accusations, for having described which is in my life, a simple reality. Please, try to accord it no more weight than that.

People are what they are; there is a rascist undercurrent in many black cultures that some here (and elsewhere) are loathe to admit, but at the same time happy to point out any perceived racism in it's 'traditionally' perceived guise. Usually citing 'rarity' as a mitigating factor for denial. Bullshit, people are people and people have racist tendencies regardless of their skin colour.

The predominately white power balance in many of western societies Alex8 referred to tends to cloud that reality. Many Whites are afraid to call out racism from minorities either for fear of a counter claim, guilt, or some other reason. Often they retreat behind some 'PC' subterfuge which avoids them having to deal with the issue at all.

This is echoed by most of my friends, black, white and coloured (itself a perjorative when used by blacks in some social situations) who, if they had to pick a label would be hard pushed to think of label, would use anything other than Mzungu, unless the intent was to insult. In short, it's not an offensive classification in the sense it's generally used, merely convenient. There isn't really a single complimentary term, that I'm aware of. Gringo is another term, referred to by Wldhoney, there many others. Some people take offence, I don't unless it's clearly meant to offend, there are bigger things to worry about.

In the final analysis, we're all people of colour. The point being that in some cultures, Alex8's 'norm', isn't. Rather, it's a different norm.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
What I'm talking about is someone making a passing comment, like 'she's a bit thick, she's Irish' and not thinking they are being (or even meaning to be) bigoted. Am I wrong to perceive that as bigotry?

That does seem offensive to me. Much unlike, say, someone making the observation that all Americans are stupid. Which of course everyone knows is true.
 

naughty

Sexy Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
11,232
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
258
Location
Workin' up a good pot of mad!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
That does seem offensive to me. Much unlike, say, someone making the observation that all Americans are stupid. Which of course everyone knows is true.

LOL! Now see, you are exactly who I was thinking of when I posted something about not being able to see the wry smile on the persons face when they are posting....:tongue: